For over 12 years I have observed Peachland politics closely. As a former policy analyst, I developed strong opinions about the governing model in this municipality and about those who appear to operate comfortably within it. On social media, citizens regularly complained about decisions made behind closed doors, about in camera meetings, and about a lack of transparency and due process.

Whenever I took on an issue publicly, the response online was overwhelmingly supportive. People thanked me, encouraged me, and said the town needed more scrutiny and accountability. I was left with the clear impression that citizens cared, that they wanted better governance, and that they were ready to support anyone willing to challenge the system.

The Firehall project proved to be the perfect test of that belief.

Citizens were furious when the municipality moved toward a P3 model to build a new firehall and municipal complex. The cost climbed from roughly $17 million to projections approaching $30 million for a town of only about 5,000 residents. I conducted a full policy and governance analysis of the P3 process and published a detailed report showing how the model would expand the use of in camera meetings, reduce public oversight, and lock the community into long-term financial obligations that could restrict organic growth for decades.

Roughly ten days after that report was published, council held an in camera meeting and abruptly abandoned the P3 process. It was widely seen as a victory for citizens. Several people approached me and urged me to run for council. They said the town needed someone who understood policy, governance, and the Municipalities Act.

So I ran. That decision turned out to be the real test.

Last night, only 16.9 percent of the population bothered to vote. The winning candidate received 335 votes, which represents roughly 6.7 percent of the total population. Ironically, the same candidate had publicly stated that he supported the P3 model that so many people claimed to oppose.

After watching this for more than a decade, I can only come to one conclusion.

People are deeply dissatisfied with politics, but they are also deeply disengaged from it. They will complain online. They will criticize council decisions. They will say the system is broken. But when the time comes to participate, to vote, or to learn what candidates actually stand for, most simply do nothing.

It is easier to be angry than to be involved.

During the campaign, one respected member of the community said something to me that I did not fully understand at the time. He told me, “You may actually be more effective outside council than inside it. On the outside, you are not restricted by the Municipalities Act or the Local Government Act.”

After this election, I understand exactly what he meant.

This result will change the way I operate going forward. I have the technical background, the policy training, and the legal knowledge to continue examining major municipal projects in detail. From outside council, I will continue to analyze decisions, expose flaws, and hold the Mayor and council publicly and legally accountable when necessary.

If citizens choose not to participate in the system, then the responsibility for oversight falls to those who are willing to do the work anyway.